I'm not saying that it doesn't get pressurized water from the pump, but if you do the same experiment that charlie performed, and introduce water to the fitting, the exhaust passing by the fitting will draw the water into the stinger fitting, period.
this is a classic example of how you guys like to run two or three arguments together , knowingly and/or unknowingly attempting to confuse the issue.
first of all, the physics just described are not why the thing is called an extractor pipe, it was initially a discussion as to whether or not the thing had ever been called an extractor pipe by anyone other than me.
secondly, this venturi crap that has been brought up by none other than sfl, is a totally different argument as opposed to what the original one was based on. being that I have initially stated years ago that the reason the thing is referred to as an extractor is because the majority of the water to the pipe is diverted away from the expansion chamber and routed to the stinger and pissers, allowing the temperature of the pipe to be hot enough, and keep the return wave at a nominal speed. the negative pressure created from the sound wave is what pulls the fresh A/f mixture into the engine, that is why the pipe is called an "extractor". it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the venturi action of the stinger fitting with exhaust flowing by it.
as I said, the confusion created here is a classic example of people running two or three arguments together, asking questions within a technical discussion, and winding up with jumbled BS.
the first of the arguments was if the thing had ever actually been referred to as an "extractor",
then the question was "why".
I have answered the questions many times over.
this argument about the venturi effect at the stinger fitting has nothing to do with it. and I'm not sure as to how in the hell it ended up as a discussion in the first place, outside of a total misconception of my answers to the questions, to begin with.
ancake:
